Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 13:15:56 EST From: "James D. Anderson" September 1994 Volume 15, Number 2 Presbyterians for Lesbian & Gay Concerns James D. Anderson, Communications Secretary P.O. 38 New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0038 908/249-1016, 908/932-7501 (Rutgers University) FAX 908/932-6916 (Rutgers University) Internet: janderson@zodiac.rutgers.edu Note: * is used to indicate italicized or boldface text. CONTENTS CHANGES EVENTS RESOURCES (left over from G.A.) Same Sex Unions -- Comments by Jim Anderson Two Grooms, by Louie Crew Tom and Dave, A Presbyterian Couple A Congregational Policy The Blessing of Relationships at St. Francis Lutheran Church, San Francisco, California And an overture Life Long Commitment of Fidelity and Love On the Civil Rights Front We Are Making History in Hawai'i, by the Rev. Maggie Tanis Resources on same-sex unions Proclamations A Proclamation for a day of Coming Out in/to/for/with The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) And from St. Mark Church, Portland Oregon More on the More Light Conference, Minneapolis, May 6-8, 1994 A Report to the Session of Palisades Presbyterian Church and the Presbytery of Hudson River, by Jack Hoffmeister CHANGES Change Jack Hartwein's apartment number from #1 to #2; delete work telephone #. EVENTS [Note: this events didn't make it into the printed Update!] Intimacy with God: Drinking Deeply From Our Own Wells, Kirkridge, Bangor, PA, January 5-8, 1995 In this eighth annual retreat for gay and bi-sexual men, we will build community to assist in developing our spiritual values and gaining a deeper understanding of our unique contribution to modern society. Reaching down into our own experience of pain and joy, we shall claim our good inheritance as God's gay people, and strengthen ourselves to participate in healing and justice- making work in church and society. Presentations, small groups, story-telling, praying, singing and worshipping will create our community together. Come and enter into this mid-winter oasis of God's realm. -- Led by: John McNeill, Catholic priest, psychotherapist, co-founder of Dignity, and "Dean" of gay events at Kirkridge, beginning in 1977. John is author the the widely acclaimed and ground-breaking books *The Church and the Homosexual*, Taking a Chance on God*, and *Freedom, Glorious Freedom*, to be published in 1995. George Lakey, a consultant and trainer, has taught at Haverford, Swarthmore, the Martin Luther King, Jr. School for Social Change; he has taught Buddhist monks from Sri Lanka, Mohawks in Canada and members of Act Up in NYC; he recently facilitated the first gay weekend workshops in Russian history. He is co-author of *No Turning Back: Lesbian and Gay Liberation in the 80's* and four other books. -- 7 p.m. Friday dinner through Sunday lunch. $295 ($150 registration deposit). Contact Kirkridge, Bangor, PA, 18013, 610/588-1793. * * * Walking by Faith, Living in Hope: A retreat for persons affected by the HIV/AIDS crisis, Kirkridge, Bangor, PA, December 2-4, 1994 How can persons with HIV/AIDS, their care-partners, loved ones, and friends face the challenges of HIV in the light of their faith? Can a crisis also be an opportunity? This retreat, led by two persons involved in AIDS ministry for the last ten years, will offer participants the opportunity to share their joys and sorrows, their loss and their hope with one another in a community of faith and support. Activities will include sharing our stories, reflecting on HIV in light of scripture, experiential activities, and a healing service. But, most of all, it will be an opportunity to be a community of mutual support. -- Led by: Bernie Healy, rector of The House of Prayer Episcopal Church in Newark, NJ. He is the former director of pastoral care at AIDS Resource Center (New York City) and the founder of Corpus Christi Ministries (Jersey City, NJ), which offers housing for homeless persons with AIDS. John McNeill, Catholic priest, psychotherapist, co-founder of Dignity, and "Dean" of gay events at Kirkridge, beginning in 1977. John is author the the widely acclaimed and ground-breaking books *The Church and the Homosexual*, Taking a Chance on God*, and *Freedom, Glorious Freedom*, to be published in 1995. 7 p.m. Friday dinner through Sunday lunch. $195 ($100 registration deposit). Persons needing financial assistance are invited to request it. Contact Kirkridge, Bangor, PA, 18013, 610/588-1793. RESOURCES G.A. PLGC Booth Materials Still Available Some of the items we made available at our booth at the Wichita General Assembly are still available: * *Making a Faithful Witness to the Whole Counsel of God,* (subtitled *A Biblical Handbook for "Coming-Out Presbyterians"*) is a passage by passage survey from Genesis to Revelation of major texts that have been distorted in an attempt to claim Biblical backing for anti-gay/lesbian/bi orientation. Each passage is accompanied with questions and commentary. It has proven to be particularly useful in pastoral counseling/care of persons who are struggling with harsh Biblical interpretations by some "traditionalists." * The annual bound, edited text of *More Light Update 1992*, and *More Light Update 1993* are still available, also. * All three of these are available in print and on computer disk through L. Dean Hay, (PLGC Coordinator for the Western Rockies). To reduce the supply and recover costs, print copies are available for $5 each, plus $1.50 postage & shipping for one or $3.00 for all three. A sample packet of gay-positive tracts will be enclosed for another $2 -- anecdotal, sometimes poignant, often with a chuckle! * The More Light Update 1991 is now being compiled with all major articles, worship and devotional materials, judicatory actions, personal witness, etc. for ready reference. These annual compilations provide access to important material published on a monthly basis, but in an annual form. The 1994 annual will be available March, 1995. Let Dean know of your interest in these in advance. These publications are also on diskette, permitting computer searches by titles, names, or topics. (Disks are special orders.) Send all orders to: L. Dean Hay, 412 E. 3400 S. #1, Salt Lake City, UT 84115, 801/485-4615. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Same Sex Unions Comments by Jim Anderson In this issue, we celebrate the marriages, life partnerships, covenants, holy unions, and committed relationships of gay and lesbian people. By now you know that the 206th General Assembly has recommended to the presbyteries an amendment to the Book of Order that would add to the section on marriage in the Directory for Worship a statement that ministers are not permitted to participate in the blessing of same-sex unions. Presbyteries should reject this ill-conceived amendment for many reasons. Here are some of them. * "Participate" is over broad and not defined. Does it mean join with another person in a same-sex union? Officiate at a blessing ceremony? Attend a ceremony? If a minister's son or daughter is celebrating holy union with their chosen partner, is their mother or father forbidden even to attend? * Is this the first time that the Book of Order will prohibit pastors from participating in ceremonies of recognition, support, or blessing? I couldn't find any other instances in the Directory for Worship. * This vague prohibition unnecessarily limits the ability of pastors to minister with the lesbian and gay community. It is unnecessary micro-management of ministry. * This prohibition violates the spirit of other provisions in the Directory for Worship, for example: * "The Christian community provides nurture for its members through all of life and life's transitions. . . . The church offers nurture to people assuming responsibilities in the world, assisting them: . . . e. with making wise commitments in personal relationships and marriage [W-6.2000-2002]." Why should this provision apply only to heterosexual members? * "The Church recognizes transitions which bring joy and sorrow in human life: . . . c. households are established, move to new locations, gain and lose members; d. people are empowered, restored, make new commitments [W-6.3010]." Why should recognition of one of the most important transitions in the life of a gay or lesbian person be banned? * "The biblical vision of doing justice calls for: . . . c. supporting people who seek the dignity, freedom, and respect that they have been denied; . . . h. redressing wrongs against individuals, groups, and peoples in the Church, in this nation, and in the whole world [W-7.4002]." I guess this doesn't apply to lesbian or gay people either. All PLGC members and friends should speak about these important issues with every member and commissioner of their presbyteries - - both ministers and elders. Suggest that they need to study the long tradition of Christian blessing of same-sex unions before they vote. Get them a copy of John Boswell's new book, *Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe* (New York: Villard Books, 1994. xxx, 412 p. ISBN 0-679-43228-0, $25.00). Boswell is the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale University, and is the author of the landmark *Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality* (University of Chicago Press, 1980). Boswell's new book on same-sex unions is "the result of twelve years of meticulous research." It "focuses on the author's discovery of Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for same-sex unions -- here translated into English for the first time. These ceremonies, which were performed throughout Christendom into modern times, are shown to bear striking resemblance to heterosexual nuptial services. . . . The analysis required to place these ceremonies in their proper context makes this book a virtual history of the roots of all modern marriages." This book "irrefutably demonstrates that same-sex relationships have been sanctioned and even idealized in Western societies for over two thousand years." -- Book jacket. You can order *Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe* direct from the publisher by calling 1-800-726-0600. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Two Grooms by Louie Crew SIDE BOX: Louie Crew is the founder of Integrity, PLGC's counterpart in the Episcopal Church. He and Ernest Clay united February 2, 1974. Louie is now my colleague at Rutgers University. Together, with 3 other professors, we are suing Rutgers and the State of New Jersey, hoping the courts will demand that they stop violating their own non-discrimination policies and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and begin giving lesbian and gay employees the same insurance coverage for our spouses as that provided routinely for heterosexual couples. Yes, this is an Episcopal gay marriage, but I don't suppose the denomination matters that much -- even though Louie might disagree! I earnestly invite Presbyterian gay and lesbian folk in committed relationships to submit their stories, pictures, anecdotes, whatever. As the presbyteries study and prepare to vote on whether ministers should be prohibited from participating in the blessing of our unions, I would like to supply them with as much real-life information as possible. -- Jim Anderson (who has been happily married to Rafael since February 25, 1972!). "Two Grooms" first appeared as "Two Non-Sexist Gay Grooms Behind the Cotton Curtain" in *Couples and Careers*, edited by Leonore Hoffman and Gloria DeSole (New York: Modern Language Association, 1976). The first four paragraphs appeared in *Integrity: Gay Episcopal Forum* (March 1975), p. 11. *Harper's* accepted them for "Wraparound" but never published them. END BOX *Fort Valley, Georgia, 1975.* Our marriage, like our courtship, has been conventional. It was love at first sight when we met at the elevator just outside the sixth-floor tearoom of the Atlanta YMCA. Ernest was a fashion coordinator for a local department store, I a state college professor from 100 miles way, deep in the peach and pecan orchards. One of us black, the other white; both native Southerners. We commuted every weekend for five months. Our friends were not surprised when we decided to marry. We would have wasted our time to send an announcement to the local papers. Besides, the bank employees spread the word just as effectively when we took out a joint account. Our wedding itself was private, just the two of us and the Holy Spirit. Parents, although loving, would not have welcomed the occasion; our priest would not have officiated even had he been granted the Episcopal authority which was expressly denied. Two apartment neighbors, historians, sent a bottle of champagne; a psychologist friend dropped in earlier to propose a toast; others sent welcoming tokens. We unloaded the heavier gear from the car before beginning the ceremony. Then we carried each other across the threshold into the dining room, where the table was set with two wine glasses from Woolworth's, one lone and lighted red candle instead of our customary two green ones, a vase with one early narcissus, and an open Book of Common Prayer [1928]. We read the service nervously, its fearsome bidding and pledges. The words *woman* and *wife* translated readily as *spouse*, *man*, *husband*, *Person*. All took only about ten minutes. One could be too quick to sentimentalize a few details, such as our bed, a two-hundred-year-old four-poster built by the slave ancestors of one of us for the free ancestors of the other. Perhaps we were fulfilling their dream? Or Dr. King's dream . . . ? We find day-to-day living too difficult for us to negotiate other people's dreams: we work at living our own dream, a dream no different from the dream of many other couples, a dream of a home with much love to bridge our separateness. After the Honeymoon Our careers have always been very important to both of us. We came together from the beginning anticipating many of the inevitable tensions between our rival commitments to careers and to each other. We both had already enjoyed professional success in a variety of occupations: our main challenge was clearly going to be whether or not we could succeed together. One of my biggest hesitancies during our months of courtship was my fear that I might thereby seem to commit myself to conjugal activity as much of the time when we lived all of our time together. Little did I realize that Ernest too enjoys working alone many days on end for 14-16 hours a day. Ironically, earlier lessons from our oppression as relatively less conspicuous gays served as resources for our thriving as an openly gay couple employed behind the Cotton Curtain. Gays learn very early that most jobs are not secure for those even suspect of being Gay. Very early on Ernest had been fired from a civil service job when he refused to go to bed with a male supervisor, who then had Ernest "investigated" and "proved" gay. All of my teaching assignments have been filled with horrifying anecdotes about various predecessors who were fired when discovered as "queer." The effect of this clear pattern of discrimination was the same on both of us: prepare for as many jobs as you possibly can; never go into real debt; own mainly portable property; be able always to land on your feet. Before we met, Ernest had supported himself with a variety of jobs -- janitorial service, modeling, fashion coordinating, nursing. I had worked as a lumberjack, mechanic, professor, professional actor, waiter, writer. We both know that when push comes to shove we can always be caterers, seamsters, peach pickers . . . . What is more, we know that we would be better than most at any of these tasks. We have simply had to be sure of this kind of mobility. Tenure is always meaningless when one is gay. I have never expected an institution to grant me tenure, and I have always been an excellent teacher precisely because I am willing to take the kinds of risks that are necessary to germinate ideas, the very kinds of risks that disqualify one with tenure committees. This is not to deny the anxiety that accompanies threats to any job security, and certainly not to support those threats, but merely to put those threats into a perspective where we have been able to negotiate them reasonably successfully with, more important than any one job, our integrity preserved. Humor has been a saving factor repeatedly. When Ernest went to apply for beauty school, for example, the white ladies who ran the place were terrified at the idea of having a black male there, assuming that his only motive would be sexual assault. When he sensed their fear, he explained to them that he is married to another man, and they took him with open arms. Imagine the response that came after a bishop from the Anglican Orthodox church had written to the local paper saying that the two of us by organizing a national group of gay Episcopalians had been responsible for the devastating tornado that had recently struck Fort Valley, a tornado that left the two of us and our property unharmed but knocked the steeple off every homophobic church in the white community. "Would one expect God to keep silent when homosexuals are tolerated?" the bishop asked. That evening in a spate of hate calls one familiar voice rang: "Louie, you and Ernest get yourselves on over here and kiss in my backyard so my greens will grow!" An administrator at the college also called to suggest that I apply for head of agriculture: power to control the wind and the rain is queer power indeed. Professional paranoia is an occupational necessity for open gays. Right now I have in litigation a complaint against a major American university [pun intended] where I was denied employment by a homophobic dean after my winning the unanimous support not only of a search committee of faculty and students but also of the entire thirty-six members of the college's Faculty Rank and Tenure Committee. Damaging evidence is still being sent to me by the members of that Committee, who are irate that the dean violated due process and hired a candidate who had received absolutely no support. More typically, job applications for advertised positions never receive answers at all. We have been no freer from domestic harassment. In August 1975, after a year of investigation, HUD found our complaint true that a local realtor had discriminated against us in housing because he considered us to be criminals. Still HUD had no enforcement powers; the realtor refused to conciliate; and no lawyer would take the case for contingency fees, knowing, as one lawyer said, "the predictable response of the juries in this part of the country." Meanwhile, in the white lower middle-class neighborhood where we live, nightly as I jog I am spat upon and verbally reviled by the 8-, 10-, and 12-year-old children on bicycles, as their parents sit on their porches relishing their vain hopes that thereby their children will not grow up to be queer. Night after night, as Ernest has returned from cosmetology classes, he has feasted on their verbal ingenuity, purposely taking up to ten minutes just to get his kit out of the car. There would be no help in protest. The police would only arrest us for "child molestation" or "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." The local Baptist preacher has already sent us a copy of a letter which he sent to the sheriff urging investigation. Our friends here for a long time wondered why we do not at least keep a lower profile by not mentioning our relationship. It is important to Ernest and me that our relationship is public. We are not merely a sexual union, but in a complex coupling that integrates all our life together. Whether we are entertaining or being entertained, even when we are just shopping at the local Piggly Wiggly, it is important for us to know that we know that they know. We can even sometimes get into enjoying their games with knowing, as when the employees all dash behind the butchers' one-way mirror to watch us wink at them when we pass. As Ernest puts it, "Honey, you may gloat, but we're the stars!" White men have been having sex with black men in the South since 1619, yet such homosexuality has always been related negatively to straight institutions and defined as adultery, fornication, or sodomy. Our open marriage obviates these definitions. The effect is sometimes to move friends and neighbors into a new state of consciousness. Barely if ever before on my almost all- black campus has a dude proudly and publicly sported his white male spouse; rarely if ever before has a white man in Georgia proudly notified his family, prep school, even his chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution, of his happy marriage to a black man. If the profile is memorable, far more important is the seriousness we ourselves have experienced in this bonding. Some of our friends elsewhere have accused us of masochism, saying that we ought to leave as soon as we get employment that is as challenging and fulfilling as that we now have, but no place is clearly enough a haven for gay persons to justify our leaving at a cut in pay or our taking jobs that we would not find fulfilling. It may very well be an indictment of the so-called liberal white American universities that they leave to a small, struggling, rural black college the admittedly difficult tasks of adjusting to an outspoken gay scholar. Interestingly, the same persons who accuse us of masochism frequently control or at least influence jobs to which we might flee. At times it is difficult to stifle the bitter awareness of the eloquence with which they would write of our being lynched. Our economic resources have been diverse, including Ernest's earnings from nursing and then from various student employments while studying cosmetology, including his unemployment checks for which he qualifies only because the state refuses to recognize our marriage, and including my salary as an associate professor, which remains conspicuously below that of unpublished but non-gay colleagues of the same rank, as revealed in the Georgia state auditor's annual report. Speculations are legion as to why I have not been fired. I prefer to think that it is because I am lucky enough to have a chairperson who knows that I am a good teacher. She feels that none of my life, public or private, is of any concern to her unless it relates directly and immediately to my function on my job. Bosses higher up are more mixed. One official called me in almost immediately after my serving notice to students and officials that I am gay; he said that he respected my courage. So did the chairpersons of at least two other departments. One very prissy boss, however, is threatened and brings visitors periodically to tut outside my office . . . . [my copy of the original publication is blurred here -- L.C.] When Ernest similarly refused to do the work of an orderly while having the rank of an LPN, the hospital employer called him "uppity." When he tried to organize the black aides to demand rights being denied them, they balked in fear and the hospital fired him. One of the lowest points in our marriage was an occasion when I asked Ernest, "If you get that job with the cosmetics firm in NYC, can I live off your earnings so I won't have to stay here in Georgia the rest of this year?" HE did not answer. I waited out the long silence almost half a day, and then he said, "Did I ask you could I 'live off your earnings' when I moved here from Atlanta without a job first?" I had momentarily lapsed from the more pervasive economy that our marriage effects. Were we autonomous, at each trysting we would come at each other unequally. I would be the wealthier, Ernest the younger; I the more experienced, Ernest the more spontaneous . . . . In marriage everything is given once and for all. For us marriage ended trading and introduced sharing. The money is *ours*. The youth is *ours*. The spontaneity is *ours*. And whatever is exhausted or whatever is incremented is *ours*. We find the marriage changes in kind the range of our personal and material security. Expressed negatively, Ernest gave up his fashion training in Atlanta to become a low-paid LPN in a rural hospital; I gave up a Fulbright to Turkey, where he would have no chances of employment. Ernest gave up his LPN so that we could be together for my summer as an NEH fellow at Berkeley. I took on our full support for several months while he was in school . . . . But the negative way of viewing our material existence ignores what we gained. By such *choices* (we do not even call them *sacrifices*), we have effected the very possibility of working together. Both careers give and take from a union that is richer than either career or than any of our possible independencies. At least we perceive ourselves richer, and as Geraldine says, "What you see is what you get!" Although we are not likely to be altogether free of them ourselves, we find that many heterosexist ways of merely asking questions about relationships create problems for the relationships. "Who makes the money?" "Who spends the money?" "Who owns the car?" "Who owns the fur coat?" "Who owns the motorcycle?" "Who pays the rent?" "Who does the dirty work?" *We do* is our answer to all these questions. My own neurotic compulsions with these middle-class perceptions have frequently inhibited my full enjoyment of our marriage. While I enjoy cooking, sewing, and more limitedly, keeping house, more and more my writing and my organizing activities have pre-empted the major portions of my energy. Ernest is a better cook, a much more efficient housekeeper, and an expert shopper. Once I came home late on a rainy night to find all the washed wet clothes in the refrigerator. "What on earth!" I exclaimed. "Lord, chile, you sure be white tonight," he laughed; "I can tell your mama never took in washing. It's the way to avert the mildew." My learning to enjoy my man's house-husbandliness as much as I enjoy my own is in many ways parallel to our enjoying all parts of each other's anatomy. The first question most gay friends ask us is, "Which of you is the husband? Which the wife?" We honestly have no way to answer respecting this dichotomy. We are not thus differentiated. We both like gentle perfumes, and we both like poignant funkiness; we both enjoy our gracefulness as well as our toughness. We are not mirror images, however. Our careers are different and we do not compete. We make no special demands about productivity, but we are both aware that a marriage is dead when either fails to want to contribute. Ernest respects the summers I spend not making a dime but writing away as if I'll not have another such season. I respect his taking off a year to go to school or his taking off time to do hair of women in the state mental hospital. We also easily resist unhealthy veneration of each other. He is wisely suspicious of much of the pomposity of the academic community and I of much of the vanity of the cosmetic industry. Each of us is mature enough in his own career not to need much reinforcement, at times even to require welcome deflation. I doubt that the two of us could thrive very long together if we did not know that we definitely can "make it" apart. We are committed to a relationship precisely because it is "unnecessary." Of course, in a temporal sphere that we *choose* to cohabit we do *need* each other and we are able to be vulnerable, but we are careful never to require a longer rope than can pull each back to his own boat and anchorage. We are not drowning men clawing at a lifeguard, as seems to be the model fashionable in much non-gay media these days. At the risk of being still more invidious, I suspect that of the many non-gay couples who break up, many break up because society's alleged supports for heterosexual relationships are falsely advertised and hypocritical. After the honeymoon is over, once the careers pull at each other, once Jan and John realize that their parents might even expect them to divorce, that their priest has divorced, that their friends and neighbors are too busy with their own relationships to care (except possibly for the value of self- congratulation that attends efforts to seem to care), non-gays choose to walk away from each other in bewilderment, or to remain together only by law. Gay relationships may be paradoxically blessed by not having the chance even to expect such support systems. Ernest and I wrote our divorce contract at the outset: each would take half. We made our wills to structure property guarantees. We both own together all that each makes. We have had to make our own structures, knowing that major efforts would be exerted to deny even those plans. We have instructions about funerals, burials, etc. We have had some few but very significant resources in our community, namely, in our friends. We are both gregarious and affable, and we are invited to many parties. Often he is the only black or I the only white present, so segregated are the others in our community. We are mad dancers, and always do courtesies of dancing with our hosts' spouses. Maybe some negative index of our integration is the fact that only one couple has ever said that we should feel comfortable to dance together at their parties, but even there the other guests do not have an ambience about them that would make us feel comfortable doing so. Also, our gay friends would be much too vulnerable for us to invite to gay parties any of our non-gay friends. In many ways we did not even anticipate, our coupling is itself our career, so much does it alter our professional expectations, our job security, our work climate, etc. Everyone knows that gay folks are reasonably harmless if we remain at the baths, the bars, the adult movie houses, the tearooms, and other such restricted areas. Ernest could have met a new Louie and I a new Ernest every night at the Atlanta YMCA for decades, and no one much would have bothered. Possibly a Tennessee Williams might have celebrated our waste, or maybe even a Proust. Certainly my priest would not have shouted, as he did recently, that we are "making a mockery of Christian marriage and the home." Then my bishop would never have written, as he did this week, "I am weary of almost constant pressure applied on this office by a movement which I do not fully understand, but which I wish to grow in understanding" -- this while virtually telling me, probably his only regular gay correspondent, that I persecute him merely by calling attention to my needs and the needs of my people. Were Ernest and I still just tricking furtively at the YMCA, my students would see me as they used to, as the linguist, the rhetorician, the literary critic, the poet, the jogger -- and not, as so often now, merely as "that smart sissy." It is only when we couple openly that the heterosexist culture marshals its forces against us. The bonding we share has made us take greater risks in thought and action. As open gays actively fighting a very hostile environment precisely because of our sexual orientation, we have at home the quiet strong security of our love always attesting to the rightness of our public claims and countering the wrong attitudes about us that even we might otherwise find hard to resist. It has been impossible for us to doubt the beauty and the holiness of gay love in general when morning, noon, and night we have known the beauty of our gay love in particular. In the past I somewhat tentatively fought from the closet for gay rights for others to be happier than I had ever been or expected ever to be: today I would fight openly to the end just for the two of us to be as happy as we are. Paradoxically, with "community" thus strongly narrowed to just the two of us, I simultaneously feel much more fully a part of the struggle of all gay sisters and brothers everywhere and for all times. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom and Dave A Presbyterian Couple We met at a little bar in Walnut Creek, a suburban town just 30 minutes from San Francisco. It's disco six nights a week, but Tuesday night they roll back the rug and the cowboys and cowgirls come in. Or at least we pretend pretty well. It was not love at first sight, but I couldn't resist those big warm brown eyes, terrific smile, and a glow in his face that said, "I know who I am." We were both still learning the Two Step, so that first dance was not pretty, but now we dance a lot and even teach. I found out he was Presbyterian and asked him to come to church with me. I was only out to a few folks in the congregation, so I introduced him as a friend I met dancing. I had been taking lessons at a straight place, so it sounded O.K. I sing in the choir, so Dave was a choir widow in the pews. People got to know him, and in two months he was the Liturgist on Sunday morning. And we were still just friends. The courtship went slowly, but I think that added a lot of depth. We didn't say the three big words until Christmas Eve, three months into the relationship, and then it almost caused our first problem. We were both excited about Christmas, especially that night because Dave was again the Liturgist, and the choir was singing some special music. After dinner and before church the adrenalin was pumping, and I told him I loved him. He was happy to hear it but disappointed because he had planned to tell me the same thing after the service! I had been trying to decide how to tell the congregation about me, and now us, when the pastor told me about a workshop called "Witness for Reconciliation" with two lesbians who had been denied calls. Dave and I went to Montclair Presbyterian in Oakland that Saturday in November and met Lisa Larges and Janie Spahr, and our lives were inflamed. We became part of the Traveling Road Show, started the Dialogue at our church, and have spoken as a couple in a large church trying to decide whether to become More Light. We came out together at the first Dialogue meeting at our church, and the majority has accepted us, especially the pastor who has supported us all the way. We're moving slowly in that process also, but example seems to make a big difference. We went to the More Light Conference in Minneapolis, and had to drink extra water to replace what was lost in tears. We held hands in church, embraced during the great music, and bathed in the love and warmth of the people there. We would settle for holding hands in our home church, but they're not ready for that yet. About a month after Christmas, Dave got even for Christmas Eve. He asked me to marry him, and I said yes. I had been thinking about saying it, but I knew better this time. We immediately started thinking about the future and planning the ceremony. We've looked at rings and especially like the clerk's responses when we say the rings are for us. We both want a church service, preferably Presbyterian, in order to accept the blessings of our friends and God in an open forum. Before June of this year we had planned for our Pastor to officiate, but we were shocked, disappointed and just damn mad then G.A. said Presbyterian pastors were no longer "permitted" to conduct Holy Unions. Dave and I don't understand. On the one hand we Lavender People are accused of promiscuity and inability to maintain long term relationships, yet on the other hand our accusers do not allow us the vehicle to prove commitment. It just doesn't make sense. We are still planning the Union for sometime after June '95. Maybe the Presbyteries won't approve the ban. We intend to speak at our Presbytery, perhaps even hold hands, whatever it takes to show what love means. Wish us luck, even pray for us, and maybe you'll see an invitation in the *Update* next Spring! -- Tom Coward and Dave Vanderhoof, soon to be: Tom and Dave Coward-Vanderhoof. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A Congregational Policy Here's a policy on blessing relationships adopted by a Lutheran congregation. Presbyterian congregations can adapt it to their needs. Compare the concerns expressed in this policy with the mandates in the Presbyterian Directory for Worship, as described inside the front cover of this issue. The Blessing of Relationships at St. Francis Lutheran Church, San Francisco, California We believe that relationships of loving, intentional commitment of one person to another are blessed by God. This blessing is inherent in the relationship itself as a part of creation. It is given whether or not the state recognizes the relationship with its laws, or the church formally sanctions it with its rites. Such relationships are the basis of the family, the fundamental unit of society into which each of us is born. It is clear from scripture that God intends that we should live together in responsible, loving, mutually interdependent families. We believe that God's blessing is given not only to heterosexual unions, but also to unions of two men or two women who pledge their love and commit their lives to each other. Even though California law concerning marriage does not apply to same-sex unions, and most Lutheran churches do not recognize these commitments, we honor them just as we honor the marriage of a man and a woman. We consider the commitment of same-sex couples to be as serious and permanent a commitment as marriage. It is our conviction that the laws of the state and the customs of the churches will some day be changed. A marriage, same-sex union, or domestic partnership may be formalized in a civil or private ceremony without the rites of the church, but we believe that it is appropriate for Christians to make these vows before a pastor, in the presence of family, friends, and the community of faith. Solemnizing our promises in this context expresses our conviction that we recognize God's love for us and our need for God's grace. In our rites of blessing, we ask for God's continuing presence with us and with our relationships, that with God's help we may love one another more fully, and may be empowered by the Gospel to overcome whatever difficulties life may place before us. We also ask the prayers, support and encouragement of the congregation, the faith community of which we are a part. The Pastor's Role When one of the pastors of St. Francis officiates at the marriage of a man and a woman, the ceremony is a legal contract bestowing certain rights and obligations. A couple must obtain a marriage license to be signed, witnessed, and filed with the county after the ceremony. The law requires the couple to meet certain qualifications -- for example, they must be of legal age, and must be divorced if either of them has been previously married. We believe that same-sex couples should be similarly qualified as to age and status. Previous committed relationships should have been terminated for a reasonable period of time. Because St. Francis is a church, a wedding or holy union solemnized by one of its pastors, in the church building or elsewhere, is more than a civil ceremony; it is a part of the public ministry of the congregation. The scripture readings and prayers of the rite presume that those being united sincerely seek God's blessing on their life together. For this reason we ask those who come to St. Francis for their wedding or holy union to meet with a pastor before the ceremony, usually in several sessions, so that he or she may counsel them in any personal, family, spiritual or community issues that may be involved in their commitment. In these meetings the pastor will also explain the significance of asking God's blessing on their union and the strength and support that is available to them in this community of faith. Practical Considerations A wedding or holy union should be scheduled at least three months in advance so that it may be coordinated with other activities, and to provide time for premarital counseling. Church members are entitled to the use of church facilities for their marriages or unions without charge. Musicians, custodians, and other staff are entitled to compensation for their services. For non-members, the church may set a fee for the use of the sanctuary, parish hall, kitchen, and other facilities. A gift to the pastor is often given in recognition of time spent preparing for the ceremony, the amount depending on the time required. Flash photography and camera floodlights are prohibited during the ceremony. Unobtrusive photography is permitted from the balcony or rear of the church. Unrestricted photography may take place before or after the rite. Music in connection with weddings and holy unions should reflect our understanding of the event. The congregation's director of music can assist in making appropriate choices. In Conclusion The pastors and people of St. Francis welcome the opportunity to serve couples as they plan their life together, and the ceremony that symbolizes their commitment. We offer our ministry to them, and to the children they nurture through the years, as long as they live, and will remember them in our prayers as we worship together each Sunday morning. Prepared by the pastoral staff and adopted by the Church Council of St. Francis Lutheran Church, San Francisco, January 11, 1994. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * And an overture Life Long Commitment of Fidelity and Love This overture was submitted to the Presbytery of Lake Michigan prior to the 1990 General Assembly. It was defeated by a vote of 90 to 61. Now is the time for congregations and presbyteries to consider their own overtures to help move our church toward celebration rather denial of our committed relationships. Whereas there is up to 10% of the population that, for reasons that are not yet clearly known, are drawn to a relationship of life-long commitment with a person of the same sex; And whereas the references to homosexuality in the Bible can be understood to be addressed to practices of idolatry and self- indulgence without reference to relationships of a life-long commitment of fidelity and love between persons of the same sex; And whereas passages of scripture that refer to sexual practices between persons of the same sex can be dealt with in the same way as the Presbyterian Church (USA) has dealt with passages referring to remarriage after divorce, the relationship between slaves and masters, women having leadership positions in the church and the importance of being subject to the governing authorities; And whereas the present position of the Presbyterian Church (USA) that refuses to recognize homosexual practices within a life-long commitment of fidelity and love does not provide the encouragement, support and love that is important for a healthy and stable relationship and thus may contribute to casual and promiscuous homosexual behavior; And whereas to hold that the yearning of the homosexual man or woman for a relationship with another person in a life-long commitment of fidelity and love must remain unfulfilled is contrary to the sprit of love and compassion of the Bible; . . . Therefore be it resolved that the Presbytery of Lake Michigan overture the 1990th General Assembly to: 1. Affirm that within the context of a commitment of life-long fidelity and love, sexual relations between two persons of the same sex can be in agreement with the teachings of the Old and New Testaments and be blessed by God; and 2. Urge the Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns to distinguish more carefully between information that is offered for open, general distribution and material that is more explicit to be made available upon request; and to stress in the material which they make available that as heterosexual practices need to be considered in terms of a relationship of a life-long commitment of fidelity and love, homosexual practices also need to be so considered. [The second clause refers to pamphlets for lesbian and gay youth written by lesbian and gay youth that PLGC made available to persons requesting them.] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On the Civil Rights Front We Are Making History in Hawai'i by the Rev. Maggie Tanis In May of 1993, the Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-gender marriage was discriminatory and must be ended unless the state can prove a compelling interest in continuing to discriminate. A final ruling should come in early 1995. The chances of a legal victory for gay and lesbian civil rights here are excellent. The Hawai'i Equal Rights Marriage Project has formed to support the legalization of same-gender marriage through education, litigation, and advocacy. Supporting the court's decision is a coalition of many local and national civil rights organizations, churches, and individuals. We hope that you will join us in this exciting movement. I believe that this case is of particular importance for the Christian church for several reasons. First, it allows churches that believe in the equality of gay unions and heterosexual unions to treat both equally. Second, the quest for marriage rights debunks myths of gays and lesbians as promiscuous and anti-family. Our pursuit of the right to marry shows that lesbian and gay couples seek to enter into lifelong committed relationships and often want those relationships blessed by their church or temple. Third, much of the opposition to same-gender marriage comes from the "religious right". It is critical that people of faith make it clear that the "right" is not the only Christian voice. If gay and lesbian people hear only rejection from Christians, how will they come to know Christ? It is the voices of mainline Christians that have been critical to other stands against the "religious right" and their political agenda. How can you help? You can play an important role in supporting this case and ensuring the legalization of same-gender marriage. We are asking for you to endorse the decision of the Hawai'i Supreme Court and the legalization of same-gender marriage and to ask your denomination to do the same. [This can be done by congregations, organizations, presbyteries, etc. -- JDA] It would be very helpful if you would contact local clergy and churches of your denomination here in Hawai'i to encourage them to support same-gender marriage. We would be happy to provide you with the names of churches and clergy in your denomination who are on record supporting this. Financial assistance is needed to continue our outreach and advocacy to ensure victory here. The chance for winning this landmark case for gay and lesbian civil rights is very good here. Hawai'i is a state that has learned to value diversity and to encourage tolerance of differences. Because of the unique situation here, we can win rights that will affect the entire nation. When same-gender marriage becomes legal, there will be repercussions throughout the United States and beyond. The Christian church will also have to decide how same-gender marriages will be handled within each denomination. We hope that you will join us in this struggle for equal marriage rights. We look forward to working with you on this issue. Please contact us at H.E.R.M.P. if we can provide you with any further information (Hawai'i Equal Rights Marriage Project, 1820 University Avenue, Suite 8, Honolulu, HI 96822, 808/942-3737, FAX 808/926-1000). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Resources *Lesbian and Gay Marriage: Private Commitments, Public Ceremonies*, edited by Suzanne Sherman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press (Broad & Oxford Streets, Phila, PA 19122, 1-800- 447-1656), 1992. 288 p. ISBN 0-87722-974-0 $34.95 cloth, ISBN 0-87722-975-9 $16.95 paper. -- "The biggest difference to me, pastorally, between gay holy unions and marriages is that there aren't the social structures that keep people together. But it's just as well it's not legal yet because it keeps people thinking about what's different and what they want to have in a relationship instead of laying on assumptions and expectations. I think that many lesbians and gays are working to make their relationships different from marriage because marriage has so much baggage with it and so many expectations." -- The Rev. Jeanne MacKenzie, Westminster Presbyterian Church, Washington, DC, as quoted in this book. *A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples*, 7th ed., by attorneys Hayden Curry, Denis Clifford and Robin Leonard. Berkeley: Nolo Press, 1993. 300 p. ISBN 0-87337-199-2 $21.95. May be ordered direct at 1-800-992-6656. Shows gay and lesbian partners, step-by-step, how to buy property together, plan for medical emergencies, and provide for each other in the case of death. New subjects in this edition are public and private domestic partner benefits and options available for starting a family -- adoption, surrogacy, etc. *Equal Rites: Lesbian and Gay Worship, Ceremonies, and Celebrations*, edited by Kittredge Cherry and Sherwood Zalmon. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994? forthcoming. *Permanent Partners: Building Gay and Lesbian Relationships That Last*, by Betty Berzon. New York: NAL-Dutton: Plume (375 Hudson St., NYC 10014-3657, 212/366-2000), 1990. ISBN 0-452-26308-5 paper $11.00. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Proclamations A Proclamation for a day of Coming Out in/to/for/with The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) We are gay and lesbian Christians, members of West Hollywood Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a congregation rooted in the love and justice of Jesus Christ, and in ministry with the lesbian/gay community. We love and serve God; We love ourselves; We love our church. We lament the horrible things said about our lives, our "lifestyles", and our faith. We detest the insensitive, cruel and condemnatory things said about our love and our commitments to enter into covenantal loving relationships; We look forward to the day when this cruelty and injustice will stop. We long for the day when heterosexual privilege will no longer dominate our theology and polity. We await the time when all sexual orientations will be equally celebrated as part of the wonderful diversity of God's created spectrum of humanity. Though our spiritual gifts and leadership have been denied by some congregations, we rejoice that others are open to the gifts of the spirit in our lives. We commit ourselves to continue offering our gifts of service, leadership, time, and financial support to the work and ministry of our Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). *Pastor Dan Smith writes: This proclamation, signed by 71 gay and lesbian members of West Hollywood Presbyterian Church, comes from our continued frustration with our own Church's inability to move forward in welcoming and embracing gay and lesbian persons in **our** Church. We are tired of the nonsense, the avoidance, the lack of serious commitment -- especially from the leaders of our church -- to "get on with this issue" and allow those of our congregations who want AND DO welcome gay and lesbian Christian persons to proudly and faithfully do so. We are also tired of the "invisibility factor" in the debate and supposed dialog in OUR church. We are present in every Presbyterian family, in most Presbyterian congregations. And so as part of our worship on the first anniversary of the denial of the Call of the Downtown United Presbyterian Church, Rochester, NY to the Rev. Janie Spahr, a minister in good standing of the Presbytery of the Redwoods, we join in the ministry of Coming OUT in/to/for/with our Presbyterian Church, and we invite others to join us in this journey of liberation as God's own people. **The Proclamation says exactly what we are feeling as faithful gay and lesbian Christian persons in the Presbyterian Church. This Proclamation is being widely circulated. Please feel free to distribute it at will.** -- Yours, together in Christ, Dan.* * * * And from St. Mark Church, Portland Oregon April 14, 1994 To the churches of the Presbytery of the Cascades: We, the session of St. Mark Presbyterian Church, believe strongly in belonging to a connectional church and are committed to membership in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). However, we are angered, frustrated and embarrassed by the way our denomination is treating gay and lesbian Presbyterians and by the lack of progress on issues surrounding homosexuality. We are distressed to be a part of: * *A church that values its own survival more than truth.* We are repeatedly told that if the church moves toward full acceptance of homosexuals, too many people will leave, and take their money with them. In our own Presbytery, we have witnessed the sad spectacle of churches withholding their per capita, demanding a promise that they will never be forced to face another gay or lesbian inquirer. Certainly this issue does threaten the unity and even the survival of the PC(USA). But while the *Book of Order* rightly calls the church to unity, it also calls the church to undertake its mission of love, reconciliation, inclusiveness and evangelism, "even at the risk of losing its life" (G-3.0400). Jesus Christ does not call us to preserve the institutional unity of the PC(USA) at the expense of truth, justice, and integrity. * *A homophobic church.* In 1978, the General Assembly voted that "unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination." In the same action, it urged "presbyteries and congregations to develop outreach programs to communities of homosexual persons"; called on Presbyterians "to reject in their own lives, and challenge in others, the sin of homophobia"; called for "an end to the discriminatory enforcement of criminal laws against homosexual persons"; and called on Presbyterians "to work for the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations based on the sexual orientation of a person." After 16 years, we see the ban on ordination being strictly enforced, while the other directives have been ignored. Our presbytery chastised its Committee on Preparation for Ministry for presenting Susan Leo, yet it did nothing to challenge its members who spoke out in favor of Measure 9 [the anti-gay referendum in Oregon]. Some of the congregations screaming the loudest about Susan Leo have never held a dialogue about homosexuality, even after 16 years. One church sent us a very negative letter simply because we invited Jane Spahr to talk to us. By ignoring its own calls for dialogue with and justice toward gays and lesbians, the PC(USA) makes it clear that it has not removed the "log" of homophobia from its own eyes before looking for specks in the eyes of homosexuals. * *An unjust church.* The *Book of Order* is correct to call for standards of godly behavior among the church's leaders. But by enforcing this clause unequally between homosexual and heterosexual people, the church is guilty of injustice. By analogy, if Portland passed a curfew law that did not mention race, but the police enforced the law only against people of color, we would all agree that was unjust, even though the law itself was just. Similarly, Jesus Christ stated many times that he supported the Law, but objected to how the religious leaders used the Law to abuse and oppress people. Biblical justice demands that we apply the same standards to others that we apply to ourselves. * *A church that refuses to follow its own polity.* The *Book of Order* clearly puts the responsibility and authority for examining candidates in local bodies: the congregation for deacons and elders and the presbytery for ministers. Yet since 1978 in the case of homosexuals, and only in this one case, the church has chosen to override that authority with a national standard set by the General Assembly. When we question this abuse of power, we are accused of threatening connectionalism. But connectionalism and centralized authority are not the same thing. Presbyterian connections are based on love, trust, and obedience to the same God, not on human authority. The church has retreated into reliance on human authority, rather than face its fears and prejudices. The PC(USA) will not be healed until it goes back to living by its own principles. * *A church that refuses to follow its own scriptures.* We take serious issue with those who would justify the church's unjust, oppressive attitude toward homosexuals with scripture. The Bible never addresses the morality of a loving, faithful homosexual relationship. It does, however, address extensively such subjects as love, justice, standing with oppressed people, and the sin of using scriptures to abuse people. The Bible overflows with examples of good, righteous people (Jonah, Peter and the Pharisees to name a few) who were certain they knew exactly who was included in God's family and who was not. But God's love was larger than their limited human understanding, and it remains so today. The Bible demands that we include all God's children in our church. * *A church that refuses to allow the Holy Spirit to move.* Presbyterian polity and reformed theology are founded on the idea that the Holy Spirit is always leading us to new understandings. Yet the possibility of new understandings regarding homosexuality seems to threaten many people very deeply. At the same time, our leaders are so afraid of conflict and disunity that they are more interested in making the issue go away than in encouraging people to grow. It is time for the PC(USA) to start listening to the Spirit, instead of its members' fears and prejudices. * *A church that refuses to follow Jesus Christ.* When we act with love, justice and compassion for society's outcasts, we follow Jesus' example. When we use purity laws to declare people unclean and deny them access to God's grace, we are following the example of the Pharisees and other religious leaders whom Jesus called hypocrites. Jesus was not afraid to face death for standing with people and standing against injustice. He was not considered dangerous because he said "love your neighbor." He was considered dangerous because he defined "neighbor" in radically inclusive ways that challenged the prevailing social order. As followers of Jesus Christ, we must do the same. Because St. Mark is part of the PC(USA), we have paid our per capita for 1994 and will continue to do so in the future. Given that our per capita money is helping to support a staff system that has been highly abusive to a member of our community, our payment is very much an act of faith. However, as long as the PC(USA) continues to act with injustice toward gay and lesbian people, we will continue, as we did in 1993, to divert a tithe of our regular mission pledge to help those who are working to end this injustice. And because we are a part of a larger, connectional church, we are willing to do whatever we can to further dialogue on this issue, whether one-on-one, session-to-session, or another format. The General Assembly has been calling for this dialogue for 20 years, and the Holy Spirit for much longer than that. We can achieve both unity and justice, but only if we are willing to sit face-to-face and share our stories, our fears and our faith. In Christ's Love, The St. Mark Session. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * More on the More Light Conference, Minneapolis, May 6-8, 1994 A Report to the Session of Palisades Presbyterian Church and the Presbytery of Hudson River by Jack Hoffmeister In this report it is my intention to describe the More Light Conference in the context of the conflict over ordination of gays and lesbians, and of its relevance to our three-year program of "study and dialogue" as mandated by the 1993 General Assembly. I attended as representative of the Palisades Church, and, not incidentally, as a gay man. First I must explain that I approached this conference with serious reservations about what I understood to be "More Light strategy." I felt that the image presented in their rhetoric and demonstrations was counter-productive. It seemed to me that, instead of concentrating on their original objective, ordination of gays and lesbians, they had broadened their mission to include a whole range of "gay-liberation" issues, distracting us and alarming others, thereby moving us away from the church instead of bringing us back in. For example they had recently begun to refer to us as "lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people." I feared that for the average Presbyterian this cumbersome name conjured up a whole bouquet of sexual anomalies, each with its own social and moral agenda; that it must sound threatening to church people who are already nervous about gay people and suspicious of their motives. I went with the hope that they would consider redirecting their focus toward the church itself; to concentrate on a mission of healing and reconciliation, instead of rights-and-justice activism. The conference changed my mind. When I arrived I found about 150 people, in an atmosphere that was comfortable and low-key. The theme of the conference was "From Dialogue to Ministry." And indeed ministry was what this conference was about. The only discussion of the ordination issue came from Rev. John Fife, who was a featured speaker. He reported that the recent decision by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission affirming, with reservations, the ordination of two deacons in Eugene, Oregon, had set an important precedent by recognizing the right of a congregation to ordain whom they choose. He believes that opposition to ordination of gays and lesbians is on the wane. The other keynote speaker, Rev. Dr. Christine Smith, from United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, focused on the needs of gays and lesbians and others who because of their sexual orientation suffer the "smothering blanket of silence and condemnation." She outlined the various directions gays and lesbians are traveling theologically. Some look for incorporation in the theological framework of the established church. Some look for new values, a radically new theology involving sexual liberation and systemic social change. But the basic need that motivates all this thinking is what she calls "homelessness"; that gays and lesbians have no home. She put it most poignantly when she said that "in our theology there is no Zion, for we have no place to go back to." Society pushes us to the edge. But then, as she said, existing on the edge has its advantages: it is a place of activity and movement, a place of creativity, what Chris Glaser calls "divine restlessness." What she was describing was the tendency I had been so wary of, moving us away from the Presbyterian Church and into a church of lesbians' and gays' own making, a church defined by specific social and sexual injustices. But as she spoke I began to understand the urgent need for a ministry that addresses those injustices, and that those needs take priority over the need to reconcile our differences with the PC(USA). Only by a process of defining gays and lesbians theologically, arguing it out, and worshiping together, will we ever locate ourselves in the greater church, the body of Christ. In the course of the conference we were introduced to other ministries. One, an organization called P-FLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), ministers particularly to parents who have had a son, daughter, or other loved one "come out" to them. Also, we saw a play called "Coming Out, Coming Home" in which the coming-out experience was explored. It was brilliant. Coming out can be terrifying; it is the Moment of Truth, and it doesn't always go well. But given the love and the will, it can be a time of growth and fulfillment for everyone involved. I also learned who "transgendered people" are. Some of the conferees visited a center in Minneapolis which dealt with a variety of problems of people who are uncomfortable with their assigned sex: those seeking or going through a sex change, cross-dressers, and people who suffer from gender dysphoria. It is estimated that at least 1% and maybe as many as 5% of the population are these "transgendered people." To say that they are marginalized is an understatement. Gays and lesbians may be living on the edge, but transgendered people live the life of outcasts. During the last few years More Light churches in several cities have been extending their ministries to include them, another example of the wider range of needs More Light ministries have been called to meet. It is worth noting that most cross-dressers and transsexuals are heterosexual; they can be ordained. My picture of the work and mission of the More Light Network, as well as PLGC (Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns) and the Jane Spahr ministry (That All May Freely Serve), changed in several respects. For one thing I found that this is not a large, organized effort. Their combined budgets are probably smaller than that of our church in Palisades. They do not have extensive programs; the word "agenda" is inappropriate here. They have little defined policy, and no tactics. They are too poorly organized to carry out the kind of conspiracy the Christian Coalition accuses us of! What they are is a voice. It is a voice that speaks for a large group of people. It is a voice that ministers. They believe, perhaps naively, that if they speak the truth and set an example of living and ministering in the light of that truth, those who oppose them will finally come around. They are not going to rewrite their rhetoric to make it more palatable to the congregations. Next month delegates in Wichita will probably see demonstrations and read literature that they won't like. But giving a voice to anger and pain is also a kind of ministry. More Light ministry is fashioned entirely to meet the needs of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered people, their families and all who suffer for their sexual orientations. It promises not to go away when the ordination issue is resolved. Which raises the question, where will the impetus to resolve this conflict come from? I believe that it can only come from within the church. The church is a family. We are in fact very much like a family in which children have announced that they're gay, but their parents have been unable to accept it. When such a rift occurs those parents who reject their children inflict a terrible cost, not only on the children, but on themselves. In a very real sense the More Light ministries are our children -- children who with love and honesty and integrity have come out to us. They are acting upon the very qualities of love and honesty and integrity that we as a parenting church have taught them. They are following the path of the same Christ we worship and believe in, and whom we took such pains to bring into their lives. We should be proud of them, proud of their commitment to righteousness and justice even if we don't always agree -- and especially for their readiness in bringing care and comfort to those who need it. By cutting them off we hurt ourselves. We have suffered that hurt for fifteen years, and it doesn't heal. It festers and infects our whole system. Last year the General Assembly gave us a mandate to devote three years to study and dialogue in hopes that this controversy might be resolved finally in 1996. How can we get started? It is the responsibility of the presbytery to initiate a program. But I would suggest that such a program be focused on one single question, that can be answered "yes" or "no." That question should ask, in effect, whether we in this presbytery are inclined to heal this rift, or not? To welcome gays and lesbians back into the family, or to disown them once and for all? However the question is framed, I would hope that all of our congregations might give it serious and prayerful consideration, so that in 1996 we will be able to give the General Assembly a clear and tangible picture of where we stand. To that end the four More Light churches here in Hudson River Presbytery are prepared to bring people together for dialogue, and to provide materials for study, wherever they might be of help -- not to recruit, but to heal. -- Jack Hoffmeister, Elder, Palisades Presbyterian Church, May 23, 1994